Page:The Indian Antiquary Vol 1.pdf/34

 18

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.

kingdom was governed by Kharagraha, and after him, by his lineal descendants. The line of Shil fiditya was restored after the death of Dhara sena IV., as is evident from Nos. 2 and 3.

According to the translators of these, the imme diate successor of this king made the grants Nos. 2 and 3, and his name was Dhruv as ena. There is here a double mistake.

The grantor's name was

[JANUARY 5, 1872.

writers on the Valabhi dynasty except Dr. Bhau Dajiº who does not give his authorities; but if they are not the same as mine, the order of names given above receives confirmation from what may, for the present, be called an independent source. In another listi given by the same writer, I find another Shilāditya, placed below Shilāditya II. But here again I must complain of his silence as

evidently Shilāditya, as may be ascertained by com

to his authorities.

paring the passage in No. 2 with the corresponding

It is not likely, though there is nothing impossible in it, that D era b h a t a, the son of S h il ãditya, should have lived to succeed Dharasena IV, the grand-son of his uncle. It appears to me that those only whose names in the plates are in the nominative case and have the epithet parama maheshvara prefixed to them were reigning kings. The names of Dera b hata, and Shilfiditya, the father of S h il fid it ya II are in the genitive case

one in the transcript of No. 3, and he was not the immediate successor of Dhar a sena IV.

He was

great grandson to Shilāditya I. as shown in the following genealogy gathered from the original of No. 2, now in the museum of the Bombay Asiatic Society :— Shilāditya I.

in No. 2 and they are not styled parama-măhesh

Derābhata.

varas. They do not seem, therefore, to have sat on the throne.



sºuls.

Kharagraha II. Dhruvasena III.

Shiláditya II.

In a few places, in the latter part of the present copperplate, the letters are not distinct : so that I

am not sure of the readings I have given of the

This last, marked—Shilāditya II. is the grantor in Nos. 2 and 3.

This genealogy differs from that given by all the

names of the fields mentioned as boundaries of the

pieces of land conveyed. be of any importance.

But these names cannot

THE travels of first

with former identifications of these spots. I

Remusat,

maintain that no satisfactory identification can

Klaproth and Landresse. An English version of this work” was published by Mr. Laidlay in

be made without a lengthened stay in the neigh

translated

Chi-Fah-Hian

into French

Calcutta in 1848.

by

MM.

were

In 1869, the Rev. S. Beal

published an original translation from the Chinese text.f Great doubts are entertained as to the correctness of portions of the French

work, and M. Julien points out that it cannot be safely used by persons unable to verify the translation by comparison with the original. Under these circumstances I make reference only to the edition of Mr. Beal.

A constant residence of many months in the midst of the places visited by the pilgrim and consequently a very familiar acquaintance, not only with the ruined temples, topes and cities themselves, but with the geography of the sur rounding country, must be my apology for publishing my notes, differing as they often do

bourhood of the places in question, and a care ful survey of the ruins themselves. No amount

of antiquarian knowledge, however profound, can compensate for an imperfect or second-hand acquaintance with the places professed to be identified.

Throughout Fah-Hian's work, distances are

computed by “lis” and “yojanas.” Mr. Beal al lows four or five “lis” to the mile, General Cun ningham six, and their estimate is doubtless cor rect. As to the second measure Mr. Beal allows

seven miles to a “yojanas” in the North-West Pro vinces, and only four in Magadha. General Cun ningham counts uniformly 7% or 8 miles as equal to a “yojana”. From a comparison of the dis tances given in Bihár, the very centre of the kinſ dom of Magadha, I do not see how more than five


 * Ibid. p. 245. t Jour. Bomb. B. R. Asiat. Soc. Vol. VII. p. 116.

t Travels of Fah-Hian and Sung-Yun Buddhist Pilgrims frº

f Ibid. Vol. VIII. p. 245
 * “The Pilgrimage of Fah-Hian ; From the French edition of

C ina to India. By Samuel Beal, B.A., Chaplain in H. M. Flee"

the Foe Koue Ki. By J. W. Laidlay, Esq. Calcutta: 1848

London: 1869,